From: Pedro Lopez-C. <pl...@te...> - 2004-07-07 18:20:37
|
On Wednesday 07 July 2004 12:08, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Tuesday 06 Jul 2004 7:33 pm, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote: > > OK, So I assume that a copy of these events is made very soon, and > > the new properties are lost. What do you prefer: to set the > > properties as persistent, or to search for the point where the copy > > is made and set the properties again in the copy? > > Ideally, to find the point where the copy is made, and then decide > what to do about it. Using some breakpoints, i think that Quantizer::setToTarget() seems to be guilty. I have this backtrace: 13 Rosegarden::Quantizer::setToTarget() at Quantizer.C:381 12 Rosegarden::NotationQuantizer::Impl::quantizeRange() at Quantizer.C:1914 11 Rosegarden::NotationQuantizer::quantizeRange() at Quantizer.C:1748 10 Rosegarden::Quantizer::quantize() at Quantizer.C:90 9 EventQuantizeCommand::modifySegment() at editcommands.cpp:876 8 BasicCommand::execute() at basiccommand.cpp:82 7 KMacroCommand::execute() 6 RosegardenGUIDoc::stopRecordingMidi() at rosegardenguidoc.cpp:1599 5 Rosegarden::SequenceManager::stop() at sequencemanager.cpp:416 4 Rosegarden::SequenceManager::stopping() at sequencemanager.cpp:360 3 RosegardenGUIApp::slotStop() at rosegardengui.cpp:4320 2 RosegardenGUIApp::qt_invoke() at rosegardengui.moc.cpp:718 1 QObject::activate_signal() It is well argued in the code why it is necessary a copy, but I don't see any harm to keep our new properties at this point. Another question is how to do that. Regards, Pedro |